In the complaint, the plaintiff, 10-year employee Denise Holder, 48, of Indianapolis, said that A.G. Edwards and Wachovia managers "regularly steer accounts, productive assets other income-generating opportunities to male brokers and away from female brokers."

Ms. Holder claims that the company discriminates against women nationwide and she seeks class-action, or group, status, on behalf of all similarly situated female employees regardless of which company they worked for before the businesses were combined.

The suit is "Holder v. A.G. Edwards, Case No. 08-1090," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Harry D. Leinenweber presiding.

APEX OIL: Sued by Justice Dept. Over Underground Gas Plume----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Justice Department has sued Apex Oil Co. in federal court in an attempt to force the company to join the effort or pay to remove the underground plume of gasoline that has allowed dangerous vapors to get into the homes and the air around northern Hartford, Red Orbit reports.

According to Red Orbit, the fumes and the problems rise during wet weather, because the gasoline and vapors rest atop the groundwater beneath the village. The plume once was estimated at 4 million gallons.

Red Orbit explains that pipeline and refinery releases over decades have created the underground mess. Lawyers point out that the gasoline contains benzene and other toxic substances, which can cause cancer. Homes in Hartford have burst into flames during high-water periods and as recently as 2007, people had to be evacuated from their homes when they became sick from the fumes.

The EPA already has reached an agreement with other refiners to start the cleanup process. That group is working under the name of the Hartford Working Group, which consists of Atlantic Richfield, Equilon Enterprises LLC (Shell) and Premcor Refining Group.

Red Orbit cites Bob Miner, a spokesman for the Hartford Working Group, as saying that the first phase of the cleanup is completed. The group has been installing and operating vapor recovery systems, sealing basements and other work to remove the vapors under the village. Mr. Miner further told Red Orbit that, so far, they have removed 350,000 gallons of vapor from the soil and that they are working on another agreement to remove liquid petroleum products.

The government claims that because Apex helped contribute to the problem, it could be held responsible to clean up the entire plume. However, Apex lawyers had argued that the company paid its share of the cleanup and that it could not be held liable for the entire cost of cleaning up the plume because it was in bankruptcy during the time it owned and operated its refinery in Hartford.

Red Orbit points out that Apex is just one oil refinery involved in the dispute, and the cleanup issue is only part of the controversy. The complaints about the plume have been going on for years, but each refiner that has operated in the Hartford area had said that the problem could be attributed to other refiners.

Decades ago, Standard Oil, Shell and Sinclair owned and operated three refineries in and around Hartford. All have undergone changes of ownership, and all but the original Shell plant have closed.

The case involved five weeks of testimony in a bench trial before Chief U.S. District Judge David Herndon in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis. Judge Herndon has given the parties until March 31 to file post-trial motions and briefs.

"We're hoping to have a decision by May or June," Mike Joyce, a spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, told Red Orbit.

Meanwhile, Red Orbit writes, Madison County Circuit Judge Dan Stack has ordered the lawyers for two competing class action lawsuits to try to work out a settlement with all the parties to compensate people who may have been made sick by the underground gas plume.

"The judge has asked us to get together to resolve all issues. He would like a global settlement," Stan Faulkner, Esq., an attorney for Goldenberg, Heller, Antognolie, Rowland, Short and Gori, said. Goldenberg Heller filed 120 personal injury cases against four of the refiners but converted them into a single class action case. Apex Oil has settled out of court in that suit.

CANADA: Supreme Court Won't Hear Certification of ONTC Case-----------------------------------------------------------The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it would not hear the plaintiffs' request for certification of their class-action suit against former employer Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, North Bay Nugget reports.

According to the report, former ONTC employees have been trying to certify a class-action suit against the Crown corporation alleging it improperly removed $80 million from their pension fund to pay for retirements between 1996 and 2004. The statement of claim says the pension plan was created in 1939 and was held in trust by the ONTC for the benefit of all plan members.

Don MacDougall, one of four ONTC pensioners who let their names stand as plaintiffs in the suit on behalf of 1,369 beneficiaries of the pension plan, admitted to Northern News that the Supreme Court's decision brought a "tremendous amount of disappointment." He said that some pensioners "have gotten a bigger pension than the ones who retired prior to 1996," which is unfair because "[t]he older pensioners who retired prior to 1996 made the same contributions into the plan [as] the people who retired after that point."

The pensioners, he added, are now in a situation to try to negotiate a deal with the ONTC, Northern News relates.

North Bay Nugget recalls that the pensioners first filed a suit against the ONTC in 2002, and since then two lower courts have turned down their attempt to certify it as a class action. Six unions responding in the suit representing most of the 975 current ONTC workers also oppose certification.

"We've spent an awfully long time fighting about process. The real issues have never been litigated, unfortunately," said Michael Robb, a lawyer with Siskinds LLP in London, Ont.

Northern Bay explains that the plaintiffs' main frustration in the legal battles had nothing to do with the issue at hand -- whether the ONTC was right to spend pension plan money to pay for employee buyouts and severance packages.

Mr. Robb added that, "None of the courts have decided the merits of the case. They haven't decided whether the allegations that pensioners have made with respect to the operation of a pension fund are valid or not. All the courts have decided is that the case as it has been framed is not appropriate for certification as a class action."

The lawyers, Mr. Robb told Northern Bay Nugget, will consult with the pensioners to determine what to do next.

CROCUS INVESTMENT: Reaches More Settlements with Shareholders-------------------------------------------------------------Settlements have been reached with some defendants in the CDN$200-million class-action lawsuit over the collapsed Crocus Investment Fund, CBC News learns.

The named defendants in the class-action lawsuit are the government of Manitoba, the Manitoba Securities Commission, former auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and former investment bankers BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., Wellington West Capital, Inc., Chubb Insurance Company of Canada.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 24, 2008, Justice Kenneth Hanssen of the Court of Queen's Bench ofManitoba was expected to decide this week on whether the purported class action by investors against the Crocus Investment Fund will go ahead.

However, according to the Canadian Press, Judge Hanssen was told that the fund's former directors and officers, PwC, the Manitoba Securities Commission and the Manitoba government have agreed to pay a total of CDN$12 million.

Manitoba taxpayers will bear part of the cost, as the province and the securities commission's share works out to CDN$2.75 million, Canadian Press adds.

Sources told the Winnipeg Free Press that the Province of Manitoba and its lawyers estimated it would cost at least CDN$3 million to continue fighting the civil proceeding, and agreed to pay now rather than put taxpayers on the hook for a larger legal bill down the road.

Winnipeg Press relates that a much larger settlement is also expected from PwC. Sources confirmed to Winnipeg Press that PwC has agreed in principle to a settlement payout in the range of CDN$6 million in exchange for being stricken from the list of remaining defendants.

A smaller settlement has also been reached with underwriter BMO Nesbitt, Winnipeg Press adds. "We have agreed in principle to settle expressly on the basis that there is no admission of liability on the part of BMO Nesbitt Burns," Ron Monet, director of corporate communications for BMO Financial Group, told Winnipeg Press.

Canadian Press says that the only defendant not to have settled so far is Wellington West, the fund's underwriters.

According to the previous CAR report, Chubb Insurance has settled for CDN$3 million in January in exchange fordropping officers and directors from the lawsuit.

Winnipeg Press writes that the court will ultimately decide how much of the settlement money will be available to shareholders. CBC News notes that are more than 34,000 of these shareholders, who invested more than CDN$150 million in aggregate in the labor-sponsored venture capital fund.

For the time being, the settlement proceeds will be held in trust by Deloitte, the court-appointed receiver for the fund, until the class-action suit is wrapped up, Winnipeg Press notes.The report says that it is not yet known whether or not this latest flurry of settlements is enough to close the class-action.

The labor-sponsored investment fund went into receivership in June 2005 -- the same year a report from the auditor general said its value had been overstated, Canadian Press recalls.

EQUITABLE RESOURCES: Faces W.Va. Lawsuit Over Royalty Payments--------------------------------------------------------------Equitable Resources, Inc., and one of its subsidiaries face a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, entitled, "Kay Company, LLC et al v. Equitable Production Company et al."

On Sept. 13, 2006, several royalty owners who have entered into leases with Equitable Production Co., a subsidiary of the Company, filed a gas royalty action with the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia.

The suit was served on July 31, 2006, and alleges that Equitable Production Co. has failed to pay royalties on the fair value of the gas produced and marketed from the leases and has taken improper post-production deductions from the royalties paid. The suit seeks class certification, compensatory and punitive damages, an accounting, and other relief based on alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment.

Equitable Production Co. removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on Aug. 7, 2006.

The plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint naming the Company as an additional defendant, according to the company's Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "The Kay Company, LLC et al v. Equitable Production Company et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00612," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Western Virginia, Judge Joseph R. Goodwin presiding.

FIFTH THIRD: Still Faces N.Y. Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Fifth Third Bancorp continues to face a consolidated antitrust class action, captioned "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05- md-01720-JG-JO," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On April 26, 2006, the company was added as a defendant in the consolidated lawsuit, which was originally filed against Visa, MasterCard and several other major financial institutions.

The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and MerchantDiscount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-JO," filed with the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of New York, Judge John Gleeson presiding.

FIFTH THIRD: Parties Appeal Rulings in MA Security Breach Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Parties are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit the rulings entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the consolidated cases brought by financial institutions that now fall under the caption, "In Re TJX Security Breach Litigation," which names Fifth Third Bancorp as one of the defendants, according to the company's Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Fifth Third was the transaction processor for the TJX companies, and therefore responsible for ensuring security of the card information.

Initially, several putative class-action complaints were filed against the company in various federal and state courts. The federal cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and are now known as "In Re TJX Security Breach Litigation." The state court actions have been removed to federal court and have been consolidated into that same case.

The complaints relate to the alleged intrusion of The TJX Companies, Inc.'s computer system and the potential theft of their customers’ non-public information and alleged violations of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Some of the complaints were filed by consumers and seek unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who transacted business at any one of TJX's stores during the period of the alleged intrusion.

Another was filed by financial institutions and seeks unquantified damages on behalf of other similarly situated entities that suffered losses in relation to the alleged intrusion.

The U.S. District Court has granted Fifth Third's motion to dismiss certain of the claims, but additional claims remain pending.

On Nov. 29, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated cases brought by financial institutions.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the District Court entered its final order in the Financial Institution Track litigation:

-- denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, without prejudice;

-- dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

-- transferring the case from the U.S District Court to the Massachusetts Superior Court in and for the County of Middlesex.

TJX Companies then filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit as to that portion of the Court's order transferring the case to Massachusetts State Court and an emergency motion to stay the Massachusetts State Court proceedings pending the appeal.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the First Circuit granted the request for stay until a further order by the Court.

On Dec. 20, 2007, Fifth Third likewise filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit solely as to that portion of the District Court's Dec. 18, 2007 Order transferring the case to the Massachusetts State Court.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal in the First Circuit as to the entirety of the District Court's Dec. 18, 2007 Order and also as to all other prior "adverse rulings" including, without limitation, the District Court's denial of class certification and dismissal of various claims.

FLORIDA: More Property Owners Join Legacy Trail Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------The St. Louis attorneys who are initiating a class-action lawsuit in behalf of property owners whose land is next to or under the Legacy Trail were back in Sarasota trying to locate more owners in Venice, Nokomis, Laurel and Osprey to become plaintiffs in the suit, the Venice Gondolier reports.

The suit aims to seek compensation from the federal government for taking land for the recreational trail.

According to Venice Gondolier, the lawsuit originally had a Feb. 11 deadline for all who wanted to be class members, but because it was difficult to find all eligible owners, the attorneys sought and obtained an extension to March 20 from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The report notes that in two meetings at the Venice Community Center last month, attorneys advised property owners of their rights and how they could become involved in the suit. Altogether, about 550 properties owned by individuals, Sarasota County, a commercial parcel and the Mission Valley and Bird Bay golf courses are eligible.

About 300 owners have become plaintiffs and another 200 could qualify, lead attorney Mark Hearne, Esq., told Venice Gondolier.Mr. Hearne said that, despite inaccurate information and outdated addresses, his firm had located 65 more eligible owners, and signed them on as plaintiffs in the past three weeks.

All plaintiffs must be identified to the federal court by March 12, according to Arthur Menke of Lathrop & Gage L.C. The class will be closed eight days later. Counsel for the government must file challenges to the eligibility of plaintiffs by May 23.

Background

Venice Gondolier explains that the track right of way was established by easements from Bertha Palmer and her brother, Adrian Honore, in 1903 to the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Under federal law, once a railroad goes out of business, it relinquishes its right to the land under the rails. The property never belonged to the railroad.

Mr. Hearne said that he will argue that the land reverts to whoever owned the land on April 2, 2004. The easement establishing the railroad's right of way was taken under the National Trails System Act, he said.

If Mr. Hearne succeeds in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs would receive a settlement consisting of the appraised value determined by the government, plus interest, less attorneys' fees.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1990 found that owners whose property was taken for use as recreational trails by a government were entitled to "just compensation," the report notes.

HALLIBURTON CO: July 2009 Hearing Set for Texas Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------A July 2009 trial is scheduled for a securities fraud lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Halliburton Co.

The class action was filed in June 2002 against the company in federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during the period starting approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002. The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the accounting change and disclosures involved in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not reasonably estimable or probable of collection. In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions were filed against the company.

Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP, the company's independent accountants for the period covered by the lawsuits, and several of the company's present or former officers and directors: David J. Lesar, Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore, Jr.

The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, "Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the company in April 2003.

As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled, "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al."

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court.

In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of Halliburton's 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the company failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

Settlement Attempts

A memorandum of understanding contemplated settlement of the Dresser claims as well as the original claims.

In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Following the transfer of the case to another district judge, the court held that evidence of the settlement's fairness was inadequate, denied the motion for final approval of the settlement, and ordered the parties to mediate. The mediation was unsuccessful.

Motion to Dismiss

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the company file a motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to replead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.

In April 2006, AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been replead.

A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than the company's CEO.

The court ordered that the case proceed against the company's CEO and Halliburton. In response to a motion by the lead plaintiff, on Feb. 26, 2007, the court ordered the removal and replacement of their co-lead counsel.

Most recently, upon becoming aware of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued near the end of its most recently completed term, the court allowed further briefing on the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the company's CEO.

That briefing is complete, but the court has not yet ruled. In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification. The company's response to the motion is due on Nov. 1, 2007. The case is set for trial in July 2009.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc., et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn presiding.

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Harley- Davidson, Inc., and certain of its officers.

Initially, a number of shareholder class actions were filed between May 18, 2005 and July 1, 2005. On Feb. 14, 2006, the court consolidated all of the actions into a single case, captioned, "In re Harley-Davidson, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-00547," and appointed lead plaintiffs.

Pursuant to the Oct. 2, 2006 deadline set by the court, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which names the company and officers Jeffrey L. Bleustein, James L. Ziemer, and James M. Brostowitz, as defendants.

The consolidated complaint alleges securities law violations and seeks unspecified damages relating generally to the company's April 13, 2005 announcement that it was reducing short-term production growth and planned increases of motorcycle shipments from 317,000 units in 2004 to a new 2005 target of 329,000 units (compared to its original target of 339,000 units).

On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss theConsolidated Complaint in its entirety. Briefing of the motionto dismiss was completed in April 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Harley-Davidson, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-00547," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr. presiding.

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a purported class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Harley-Davidson, Inc.

On Aug. 25, 2005, a class action alleging violations of ERISA was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the court ordered the ERISA action consolidated with the federal derivative and securities actions for administrative purposes.

Pursuant to the schedule set by the court, on Oct. 2, 2006, the ERISA plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, which named as defendants:

In general, the ERISA complaint includes factual allegations similar to those in the shareholder class actions and alleges on behalf of participants in certain Harley-Davidson retirement savings plans that the plan fiduciaries breached their ERISA fiduciary duties.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ERISA complaint in its entirety. Briefing of the motion to dismiss was completed in April 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Bosman v. Harley-Davidson Inc., et al., Case No.2:05-cv-00912-CNC," filed with the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr. presiding.

HEALTHMARKETS INC: Accused of Scamming Customers in Calif. Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Healthmarkets Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court in Los Angeles claiming that the company defrauded more than 100,000 consumers that availed of health insurance policies by offering them affordable group rates but concealing its control of the only firms it endorses, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Also named defendants are:

* Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee,

* The Alliance for Affordable Services, and

* Specialized Association Services.

Named plaintiff Bonnie Parco claims that the defendants settled a class-action lawsuit making similar allegations for the period Aug. 1, 1998, to May 14, 2004, but that the "Defendants continue to maintain this fraudulent marketing scheme."

Ms. Parco also sued Elizabeth Soloman, who allegedly sold her a $1-million policy. Ms. Parco claims that when she filed a claim, "Mid-West advised that it intended to rescind based on post-claim underwriting, which is prohibited in California."She further claims, "The sales pitch that plaintiff fell for is the same sales pitch more than 100,000 U.S. insurance consumers have fallen for in joining Alliance, and paying membership fees, in order to obtain so-called negotiated affordable group rates on medical insurance."

HealthMarkets, Inc. (NYSE:UCI) offers health and life insurance through its MEGA Life and Health Insurance, Chesapeake Life Insurance Company, and other subsidiaries. Its targeted customers are the self-employed, association groups, and small businesses. Other services include third-party administrative and distribution services for health care providers and other insurers.

The company changed its name from UICI to Health Markets in 2006 after being acquired by a consortium led by the Blackstone Group.

HELEN OF TROY: $4.5M Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set June 19-------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas has scheduled a hearing on June 19, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. for the approval of a $4.5-million settlement deal in a securities fraud class action filed against Helen of Troy, Ltd.

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Helen of Troy common stock between Oct. 12, 2004, and Oct. 10, 2005.

The deadline to file proofs of claim is on May 27, 2008, while the deadline to file for exclusion is on June 5, 2008.

The class action is a consolidation of several suits against thecompany, Gerald J. Rubin, the company's chairman of the board,president, and chief executive officer, and Thomas J. Benson,the company's chief financial officer, on behalf of purchasersof publicly traded securities of the company.

The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10 (b) and 20(a)of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andRule 10b-5 thereunder, on the grounds that the company and thetwo officers engaged in a scheme to defraud the company'sshareholders through the issuance of positive earnings guidanceintended to artificially inflate the company's share price sothat Mr. Rubin could sell almost 400,000 of the company's commonshares at an inflated price.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, interest, fees,costs, an accounting of the insider trading proceeds, andinjunctive relief, including an accounting of and the impositionof a constructive trust and asset freeze on the defendants'insider trading proceeds.

An agreement in principle has been reached to settle theconsolidated class action. The proposed settlement remainssubject to a number of conditions, including the negotiation offinal settlement documents and court approval following noticeto class members (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2008).

Under the proposed settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissedwith prejudice in exchange for a cash payment of $4.5 million.

The suit is "In Re: Helen of Troy, Ltd., Securities Litigation,Case No. 3:05-cv-00431-DB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under Judge David Briones.

HERCULES INC: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Dioxin Suit------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld on Feb. 22 the dismissal of a civil lawsuit against major U.S. chemical companies brought by Vietnamese plaintiffs over the use of the defoliant "agent orange" during the Vietnam War, Reuters reports.

The ruling concluded that the plaintiffs could not pursue their claims against nearly 30 chemical companies.

The chemical companies are alleged to be directly accountable for supplying the U.S. military with "agent orange" during the Vietnam War and causing widespread dioxin poisoning. Guardian.co.uk explains that U.S. warplanes dumped about 18 million gallons of the defoliant on Vietnamese forests between 1962 and 1971 to destroy Vietnamese sources of food and cover. The Vietnamese plaintiffs seek damages from dioxin poisoning, which decades later they say has caused cancer, deformities and organ dysfunction.

The Class Action Reporter mentioned in its Aug. 9, 2007 report that in January 2004, Hercules Inc. was named as defendant in the purported class action, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York byThe Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin and several individuals who claim to represent 2-4 million Vietnamese who allege that agent orange caused them or their families to sustain personal injuries. The suit also alleges violations of international law and war crimes, as well as violations of the common law for products liability, negligence and international torts.

Reuters notes that the chemical companies also include Dow Chemical Co. and Monsanto Co.

Reuters recounts that Judge Roger Miner of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, New York, ruled in March 2005 that the plaintiffs failed to show that use of agent orange, a plant killer supplied to the U.S. military in Vietnam, violated a ban on the use of poisonous weapons in war and that the lawsuit did not prove the plaintiffs' health problems were linked to the chemical.

"Although the herbicide campaign may have been controversial, the record before us supports the conclusion that agent orange was used as a defoliant and not as a poison designed for or targeting human populations," Judge Miner had written for the three-judge appeals court panel.

Reuters says that the Appeals Court also upheld two other agent orange rulings, including one in a case that was brought by veterans and their families who said their health problems did not become apparent until after a 1984 class-action settlement was reached with a group of veterans. In that case, the Second Circuit found that, as government contractors, the chemical companies could be shielded from liability.

"These decisions mean that, if these decisions are not reversed by the Supreme Court, the era of agent orange litigation has ended," Jonathan Moore, Esq., an attorney for the Vietnamese plaintiffs, told Reuters. He said his clients were "deeply disappointed" in the ruling and would appeal.

The United States has maintained there is no scientifically proven link between the wartime spraying and the claims of dioxin poisoning by more than 3 million people in Vietnam. The U.S. government, which claimed sovereign immunity, was not sued.The plaintiffs had sought class-action status for millions of Vietnamese people in a case that, if successful, could have resulted in billions of dollars in damages and the costs of environmental cleanup in Vietnam.

Hercules Inc. -- http://www.herc.com-- is a manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals and related services for a range of business, consumer and industrial applications. The company's principal products include chemicals used by the paper industry, water-soluble polymers and specialty resins. The primary markets served by Hercules include pulp and paper, paints and adhesives, construction materials, food, pharmaceutical and personal care, and industrial specialties, including oilfield, textiles and general industrial.

KOPPERS INC: Somerville Residents' Suits in Pa., Tex. Dismissed---------------------------------------------------------------Two purported class actions that were brought on behalf of residents of Somerville, Texas against Koppers, Inc., have been dismissed, according to the company's Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Pennsylvania Litigation

Koppers was named defendant in a putative class action that sought the establishment of a medical monitoring program and the costs of periodic health screening and diagnostic testing for a class of approximately 7,500 people who have lived or currently live in Somerville, but who have not experienced any diseases.

The case was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in October 2007.

The plaintiffs alleged that they have been exposed to harmful levels of various toxic chemicals from the Somerville wood treatment plant. They sought unspecified damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.

Texas Litigation

A separate complaint was filed with the District Court of Burleson County, Texas in October 2007. The complaint was a putative class action filed on behalf of current and former residents of Somerville, Texas who live or lived within a one mile radius of the Somerville wood treatment plant.

The plaintiffs estimate the putative class to number in excess of 2,500 people. Koppers and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. were named defendants.

The complaint sought certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, relocation expenses, injunctive relief, punitive damages in an unspecified amount, the costs of developing a notice plan to notify members of the putative class and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs also filed an application for a temporary injunction seeking, among other things, temporary injunctive relief from alleged further releases of chemicals from the Somerville plant, the temporary relocation of all class members and reimbursement for certain personal and relocation expenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, Koppers filed a notice pertaining to the removal of the case from the District Court of Burleson County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

On Jan. 31, 2008, the Court dismissed the second case without prejudice.

Koppers Inc. -- http://www.koppers.com/-- is an integrated global provider of carbon compounds and commercial wood treatment products. The Company's products are used in various applications in a range of end markets, including the aluminum, railroad, specialty chemical, utility, rubber and steel industries. The Company operates two principal businesses: Carbon Materials and Chemicals, and Railroad and Utility Products. In the Carbon Materials and Chemicals business, Koppers is engaged in distilling coal tar in North America, Australia, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. In the Railroad and Utility Products business, the Company provides various products and services to railroads, supplies treated wood poles to electric and telephone utilities and provides products to, and performs various wood treating services for, vineyards, construction and other commercial applications.

MTC TECHNOLOGIES: Signs MoU to Settle Shareholder Litigation------------------------------------------------------------MTC Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq Global Select Market: MTCT), an industry-recognized provider of aircraft modernization and sustainment, professional services, C4ISR, and logistics solutions to the Department of Defense and national security agencies, announced today that it has entered into a memorandum of understanding with regard to a proposed settlement of outstanding litigation.

On January 25, 2008, Superior Partners, an alleged MTC stockholder, filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of all MTC stockholders against MTC, all of the members of the board of directors of MTC, and BAE Systems.

The settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding is subject to the execution by the parties of a definitive settlement agreement, and the approval of that agreement by the Court after notice to shareholders.

The settlement is also conditioned upon the consummation of the proposed merger of MTC Technologies, Inc. with a wholly owned subsidiary of BAE Systems, Inc.

NETWORK SOLUTIONS: Faces. Calif. Lawsuit for Defrauding Millions----------------------------------------------------------------Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that's netted the firm millions of dollars, a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court, Central District of California by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states.

"Imagine if you asked a car dealer if they had a black convertible and were then forced to buy the car from them. Would you get a good deal? Each time someone asks Network Solutions about a domain name, the firm creates a monopoly for itself, forcing consumers to pay the price they demand," said Brian Kabateck, lead counsel in the class action and Kabateck Brown Kellner's Managing Partner.

Whenever someone searches for the availability of a domain name through Network Solutions' website, the company immediately registers the name for itself, preventing other companies from selling it and forcing consumers to pay Network Solutions' expensive fees.

If a consumer were to go to another, cheaper site to register the name, they would find the name is "unavailable." Consumers are never informed that inquiring as to a name's availability through Network Solutions results in the company holding a monopoly on selling that name.

This allows Network Solutions to continue charging substantially higher prices for domain name registration. Network Solutions charged $34.99 to register the name sought by this suit's lead plaintiff. A competitor would have charged $9.99.

Network Solutions' scheme is made possible by ICANN. ICANN allows companies that sell domain names to avoid paying registration fees for names cancelled within five days. Thus, Network Solutions can defraud customers at no cost to itself.ICANN is aware that Network Solutions is abusing this policy and yet continues to facilitate its actions.

ICANN is the international organization, headquartered in Marina Del Rey, CA, that regulates domain names and other Internet protocols.

The report relates that Judge Vratil rejected the oil companies' request to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that they had not proven that the plaintiffs would not prevail in court. The ruling now allows both sides to begin collecting more information on the way to trial.

According to SFGate, dozens of lawsuits filed by consumers in 26 states were centralized in Judge Vratil's federal court in Kansas City, Kan., in 2007. The lawsuits center on the oil industry's century-old practice of pricing gasoline on a standard of 60 degrees. As temperatures rise during warmer months, the gasoline expands, meaning customers get less energy per gallon. The plaintiffs claim that gasoline sold in the states where lawsuits have been filed is an average of 10 degrees warmer than the industry standard.

SFGate points out that members of Congress have estimated the changes in temperature have cost consumers $1.5 billion a year, and they considered forcing oil companies to install pumps that adjust for temperature changes. In fact, the industry uses temperature-adjusting technology at every step of fuel sales except retail, although many companies do use temperature-adjusted pumps in Canada, where the temperature falls below the industry standard, meaning consumers get more for their money.

PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Flat Glass Antitrust Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ PPG Industries, Inc., faces several purported federal class actions in various jurisdictions over alleged antitrust violations related to the sale of flat glass, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Five purported antitrust class actions naming PPG and other flat glass producers were filed in three different federal courts. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and conditions of sale of flat glass in the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws.

PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- is a global supplier of protective and decorative coatings. The Company operates in five segments: Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings, Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals and Glass. The Performance Coatings and Industrial Coatings segments supply protective and decorative finishes for customers in a range of end use markets, including industrial equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft equipment; automotive original equipment; and other industrial and consumer products. In addition to supplying finishes to the automotive original equipment market, PPG supplies automotive refinishes to the aftermarket.

PPG INDUSTRIES: Pa. Court Approves $23M Antitrust MDL Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a $23-million settlement reached by PPG Industries, Inc., in a suit alleging it violated antitrust rules in its operation in the U.S. automotive refinish industry, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Approximately 60 cases alleging antitrust violations in the automotive refinish industry have been filed in various state and federal jurisdictions. Approximately 55 of these federal cases have been consolidated as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Certain of the defendants in the federal automotive refinish case have settled. The automotive refinish cases in state courts have either been stayed pending resolution of the federal proceedings or have been dismissed.

Neither PPG's investigation conducted through its counsel of the allegations in these cases nor the discovery conducted in the case has identified a basis for the plaintiffs' allegations that PPG participated in a price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S. automotive refinish industry.

PPG's management continues to believe that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the company and that it has meritorious defenses in the federal automotive refinish case.Nonetheless, it remained uncertain whether the federal court ultimately would dismiss PPG, or whether the case would go to trial.

On Sept. 14, 2006, PPG agreed to settle the federal class action for $23 million to avoid the ongoing expense of this protracted case, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with complex litigation involving jury trials. PPG recorded a charge for $23 million.

This amount was held in escrow and, on Dec. 28, 2007, the federal court approved the class action settlement agreement. In January 2008, the $23 million was released.

The suit is "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1426," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Richard Barclay Surrick.

RENAL CARE: Tenn. Court Considers Appeal in Dismissed Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------The Appellate Court of Tennessee has yet to issue a ruling on an appeal by plaintiffs in a lawsuit against former officers and directors of Renal Care Group, Inc., an acquisition of Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KgaA, in connection with the dismissal of their case.

RCG was named as a nominal defendant in a second amended complaint filed on Sept. 13, 2006, with the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee Twentieth Judicial District at Nashville against former officers and directors of RCG that purports to constitute a class action and derivative action relating to alleged unlawful actions and breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the RCG Acquisition and in connection with alleged improper backdating and timing of stock option grants.

The complaint sought damages against the former RCG officers and directors and did not state a claim for money damages directly against the company.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the suit was dismissed by the trial court without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs subsequently appealed and the matter remains pending with the appellate court of Tennessee, according to the Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KgaA's Feb. 21, 2008 form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Renal Care Group, Inc. -- http://www.renalcaregroup.com-- is a provider of dialysis services to patients with chronic kidney failure, also known as end-stage renal disease.

ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Litigation Over Ky. Plant Pollution------------------------------------------------------------Rohm & Haas Co. continues to face a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky captioned, "Donaway et al. v. Rohm and Haas Co., Louisville Plant, Case No. 3:06-cv-00575-JGH."

The complaint was filed on Nov. 9 2006, by individuals alleging that their persons or properties were invaded by particulate and air contaminants from Rohm's Louisville plant. The complaint seeks class action certification as there are hundreds of potential plaintiffs residing in neighborhoods within two miles of the plant.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is the "Donaway et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company, Louisville Plant, Case No. 3:06-cv-00575-JGH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky under Judge John G. Heyburn, II.

ROHM & HAAS: Circuit Mulls Appeal in Plastics Additives Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule on a motion appealing the class certification of a consolidated lawsuit against Rohm & Haas Co., and several others, which is alleging antitrust violations over the sale of plastics additives, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Direct Purchaser Cases

Nine private federal court civil antitrust actions were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, including one that originally had been filed in State Court in Ohio and another involving an individual direct purchaser claim that was filed in federal court in Ohio.

These actions have been brought against the Company and other producers of plastics additives products by direct purchasers of these products and seek civil damages as a result of alleged violations of the antitrust laws.

The named plaintiffs in all but one of these actions are seeking to sue on behalf of all similarly situated purchasers of plastics additives products.

Federal law provides that persons who have been injured by violations of Federal antitrust law may recover three times their actual damages plus attorneys' fees.

In the fall of 2006, the Court issued an order certifying six subclasses of direct purchasers premised on the types of plastics additives products that have been identified in the litigation.

On April 9, 2007, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear an appeal from the Court's certification order. As a result of the appeal, the lower court has stayed the consolidated direct purchaser cases indefinitely.

Indirect Purchaser Cases

In addition, in August 2005, a new indirect purchaser antitrust class-action complaint was filed with the U.S. District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, consolidating all but one of the indirect purchaser cases that previously had been filed in various state courts, including Tennessee, Vermont,Nebraska, Arizona, Kansas and Ohio.

The Court has dismissed from the consolidated action the claims arising from the states of Nebraska, Kansas and Ohio, and allowed the claims from Arizona, Tennessee and Vermont to continue.

Because of the significant effect that the decision of the Third Circuit on the appeal of class certification in the direct purchaser cases may have on the indirect purchaser class, the parties agreed to stay this case pending the outcome of the appeal. The only remaining state court indirect action is the one filed in California which is dormant.

Rohm & Haas Co. -- http://www.rohmhaas.com/-- is a global specialty materials company whose portfolio of global businesses includes specialty materials, electronic materials and salt. The Company’s products enable the creation of consumer goods and other products found in a segment of dynamic markets, including building and construction, electronics, packaging and paper, industrial and other, transportation, household and personal care, water and food. It has operations with approximately 100 manufacturing and 33 research facilities in 27 countries.

SOVEREIGN CORP: Faces Penna. Suit Over Workers' Retirement Funds----------------------------------------------------------------Sovereign Bancorp is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that it over-invested its workers' retirement funds in company stock without warning them of its self-serving conflicts of interest that cost them millions of dollars, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Emanuel Schmalz brings the action pursuant to Sections 502(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 USC Sections 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3), against plan fiduciaries.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, as fiduciaries of the Plan, breached their duties to him and to the other Plan participants in violation of ERISA, particularly with regard to the Plan's holdings of Sovereign stock

The Plaintiff also brings the action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time during the Class Period, i.e., between January 1, 2007, and the present, and whose accounts included investments in Sovereign stock.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

(a) whether the defendants each owed a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff and members of the class;

(b) whether the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and class members by failing to act prudently and solely in the interests of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries;

(c) whether the defendants violated ERISA; and

(d) whether the members of the class have sustained damages and, if so, what is the proper measure of damages.

The plaintiff requests for the following relief:

-- a declaration that the defendants have each breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the participants;

-- a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to the protection of ERISA Section 404(c)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(c)(1)(B);

-- an order compelling the defendants to make good to the Plan all losses resulting from their breaches of fiduciary duties, including losses resulting from imprudent investment of the Plan's assets, and to restore to the Plan all profits they made through use of the Plan's assets, and to restore to the Plan all profits which the participants would have made if they had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations;

-- imposition of a Constructive Trust on any amounts by which any Defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of the Plan as the result of breaches of fiduciary duty;

-- an Order enjoining the defendants from any further violations of their ERISA fiduciary obligations;

-- actual damages in the amount of any losses the Plan suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts in proportion to the accounts' losses;

-- an order that the defendants allocate the Plan's recoveries to the accounts of all participants who had their account balances invested in the common stock of Sovereign maintained by the Plan in proportion to the accounts' losses attributable to the precipitous decline in the stock of Sovereign equity;

-- an order awarding costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(g);

-- an order awarding attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(g) and the common fund doctrine; and

-- an order for equitable restitution and other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief against the defendants, including appropriate modifications to the Plan to ensure against further violations of ERISA.

The suit is "Emanuel Schmalz et al v. Sovereign Bancorp et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Settlement in "Waxler" Lawsuit Becomes Final----------------------------------------------------------------The settlement of a purported class action against Trinity Industries, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Trinity Marine Products, Inc., with regards to barges it sold that were allegedly applied with defective coatings was approved on a final basis.

Trinity Industries, Trinity Marine, and certain material suppliers and others, are co-defendants in a class action filed in April 2003 entitled, "Waxler Transportation Company, Inc. v. Trinity Marine Products, Inc., et al.," pending in Suit No. 49-741, Division "B" with the 25th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana.

The plaintiff and class representative owned four tank barges on which allegedly defective coatings were applied.

To avoid a continuing commitment of management and executive time as well as the legal, expert, and transactional costs associated with litigating the claims alleged, the Company and TMP reached a preliminary settlement agreement in the Waxler Case that was preliminarily approved by the court.

Pursuant to that agreement, the court certified the class for settlement purposes on Aug. 20, 2007. Thereafter, notice of the approved preliminary settlement agreement was provided to the class.

The preliminary settlement agreement requires each class member whose individual claims will be settled via the class settlement to elect one of three, mutually exclusive settlement options.

At the court-scheduled fairness hearing held Nov. 29, 2007, no objections by class members were proffered and the court approved the preliminary settlement agreement.

The court's judgment became final on Feb. 9, 2008 at which time no appeals or other challenges to the preliminary settlement had been filed, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: July 2008 Trial Set for MN Securities Suit--------------------------------------------------------------A tentative July 2008 trial is slated for the consolidated securities fraud class action pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against UnitedHealth Group, Inc.

On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class actions alleging a violation of the federal securities laws was brought by an individual shareholder against certain of the company's current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Dec. 8, 2006, consolidating the actions into a single case. The action is captioned, "In re UnitedHealth Group Incorporated PSLRA Litigation." The appointed lead plaintiff is California Public Employees Retirement System.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations and omissions during the period between Jan. 20, 2005, and May 17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock. The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in possession of material, non-public information concerning matters set forth in the complaint.

It alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action also seeks unspecified money damages and equitable relief.

The defendants asked the court to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. However, dismissal motion was denied by court, thus allowing discovery process.

On July 18, 2007, the lead plaintiff moved for, and was later denied partial summary judgment on the Company's liability on the Section 11 claim.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery and the case is currently scheduled to be ready for trial in July 2008, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum presiding.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: MN Court Mulls Dismissal Bid v. "Zilhaver"--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of the lawsuit, "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN."

On June 6, 2006, the purported class action was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of participants in the company's 401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (UnitedHealth Group Inc. 401 (k) Savings Plan) for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and held shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock at any time from Dec. 21, 2005, through May 24, 2006.

The case alleges that UnitedHealth Group Inc. and other Plan fiduciaries concealed from Plan participants important information concerning:

-- long-standing, improper practices at the company relating to executive stock options, including those awarded to former chief executive William McGuire and current chief executive Stephen Hemsley; and

-- whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a prudent and suitable retirement investment for the Plan.

On May 1, 2007, the plaintiffs amended the complaint. That amended complaint alleges that the fiduciaries to the Company-sponsored 401(k) plan violated ERISA by allowing the plan to continue to hold company stock.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 22, 2007. A hearing on the motion to dismiss took place on Jan. 8, 2008.

Yet, the dismissal motion remains under consideration by the court, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum presiding.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Appeals Court Rejects Motions in Fla. Cases---------------------------------------------------------------The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied all pending motions without prejudice and set a briefing schedule for future motions in connection with the recent decision it has issued in the class action, entitled, "Shane v. Humana," which was filed by a group of physicians against a unit of the UnitedHealth Group, Inc., and several other health benefits businesses.

Beginning in 1999, a series of class actions were filed against both UnitedHealthcare and PacifiCare Health Systems, and virtually all major entities in the health benefits business.

In December 2000, a multi-district litigation panel consolidated several litigation cases involving the company and its affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the Southern DistrictCourt of Florida.

The health care provider plaintiffs alleged statutory violations, including violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act in connection with alleged undisclosed reimbursement policies. Other allegations included breach of state prompt payment laws and breach of contract claims for failure to timely reimburse health care providers for medical services rendered.

The consolidated suits seek injunctive, compensatory and equitable relief as well as restitution, costs, fees and interest payments.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the class action status of certain of the RICO claims, but reversed as to the breach of contract, unjust enrichment and prompt payment claims. Most of the co-defendants have settled.

On Jan. 31, 2006, the trial court dismissed all claims against PacifiCare, and on June 19, 2006, the trial court dismissed all claims against UnitedHealthcare brought by the lead plaintiffs.

On June 13, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed those decisions. Included in the multidistrict litigation are tag-along lawsuits which contain claims against the Company similar to the claims dismissed in the lead case.

The tag-along cases were stayed pending resolution of the lead case. That stay has not been lifted, but it is anticipated that the trial court will now lift the stay and address the continuing viability of the tag-along claims.

The plaintiffs in a number of the tag-along cases have sought to remand the cases to alternate forums. The company opposed these efforts and have asked the court to apply its June 2006 summary judgment ruling, and its other applicable pretrial rulings, to those cases.

On Feb. 12, 2008, the court denied all pending motions without prejudice and set a briefing schedule for future motions, including motions for summary judgment, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc. -- http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com-- is a diversified health and well-being company that offers a broad spectrum of products and services through six operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise, Specialized Care Services and Ingenix. Through its family of businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million individuals nationwide.

UNITED PARCEL: Faces Lawsuit in Okla. Over Illegal Bundling-----------------------------------------------------------United Parcel Services is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma accusing it of illegal bundling, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Thermal Technologies, Inc., brings the action for the ground shipment of parcels withing the United States valued at up $100.00.

According to the CourtHouse report, UPS abuses its market power to illegally tie insurance on packages worth up to $100 with delivery services, and to charge customers for insurance whether they want it or not.

Specifically, for ground shipping within the United States of parcels valued at up to $100.00, UPS bundles its pricing for its shipping service with the offering of insurance for the package, such that a customer is also required to obtain insurance coverage from UPS for the shipment, regardless of whether the customer would have preferred to forego the insurance coverage or would have preferred to obtain insurance coverage from a different provider. That is, even if the customer would prefer not to obtain insurance at all or not to do so from UPS, UPS still charges the customer the same bundled or tied price that includes insurance coverage provided by UPS.

In this manner, UPS has unlawfully exploited its market power in the relevant U.S. market for ground shipments in order to thwart competition in the separate market for insurance coverage for such parcel shipments.

The plaintiff brings the action against UPS for violations of the federal antitrust laws to seek monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief for UPS' anticompetitive conduct.

The plaintiff also brings the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of all other similarly situated persons and entities as the conduct alleged ceases, directly paid money to UPS for the ground shipment of packages within the U.S. valued at up to $100.00.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

(a) the definition of the relevant market (s);

(b) UPS' market power within these relevant market(s);

(c) whether UPS unlawfully restrained competition in any or all of these relevant markets;

(d) whether any unlawful restriction of competition caused by UPS caused injury to the business or property of plaintiff and the class members;

(e) the extent of any such injury; and

(f) the appropriate remedy for any such injury.

The plaintiff requests for an order from the court as follows:

-- entering judgment for plaintiff and the class and against defendant on all counts;

-- certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the class, and designating plaintiff and its counsel as class representative and class counsel, respectively;

-- directing that notice of this action be disseminated to the absent class members at defendant's expense;

-- awarding plaintiff and the class members their compensatory and statutory money damages, including trebled damages and punitive damages where appropriate;

-- declaring defendant's actions to be violations of the federal antitrust laws, and the common law, and enjoining defendant from carrying on such conduct;

-- requiring defendant to disgorge its ill-gotten gains, and awarding the proceeds of this disgorgement to plaintiff and the class members; and

-- requiring defendant to establish a common fund from which compensation can be made to plaintiff and the class members, and from which plaintiff's counsel may recover their reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of suit.

The suit is "Thermal Technologies, Inc. et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 08 CV-102GKF FHM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that U.S. Airways breached its contract of carriage by charging additional fares and fees, after the purchase of tickets on the usairways.com Web site, for passengers under two years of age who travel as "lap children," meaning that the child does not occupy his or her own seat but travels instead on the lap of an accompanying adult.

The plaintiffs allege that they purchased international tickets through the Web site for themselves and a lap child. They say that after initially receiving an electronic confirmation that there would be no charge for the lap child, they were later charged an additional $242.50.

The complaint alleges a class period from Feb. 9, 2002, to the present.

The company was served with an amended complaint in early March 2007 that continued the same allegations, but dropped Ms. Renard as a class representative.

On May 1, 2007, U.S. Airways filed an answer to the complaint and also asked the court for a "complex case" designation, which the court granted on May 11, 2007.

On September 25, 2007, the parties reached a settlement for an immaterial amount. That agreement must be approved by the court in order to become final, according to the company's Feb. 20, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

U.S. Airways Group, Inc. -- http://www.usairways.com-- serves as the holding company for its direct and indirect wholly ownedsubsidiaries, US Airways, Inc. (US Airways) and America WestAirlines, Inc. (AWA).

WELLPOINT INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation----------------------------------------------------------------A complaint for unpaid overtime was filed on Feb. 21, 2008, with the United States District Court for Northern District of New York by current and former employees against WellPoint, Inc.

WellPoint is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana and operates call centers in states all over the country.

The plaintiffs work or worked as utilization review nurses, case management nurses, and medical management nurses in these call centers, answering telephone calls from hospitals, members, and providers. The plaintiffs seek overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York state wage and hour law. The complaint is brought as a purported collective and class action.

Rachhana T. Srey of the law firm of Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP explained, "These call center nurses allege that they should be treated as non-exempt workers and paid overtime. They spend the majority of their work day answering telephone calls and entering data into WellPoint's computer system. A nursing degree does not automatically make them exempt from overtime under federal and state laws. The law requires us to look at their actual job duties."

The suit is "Ruggles et al v. WellPoint, Inc., Case Number: 1:2008cv00201," filed with the United States District Court for Northern District of New York, Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, presiding with referral to Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece.

MBIA INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.---------------------------------------------------------------Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MBIA, Inc. (NYSE:MBI) common stock during the period between October 26, 2006 and January 9, 2008.

The complaint charges MBIA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

MBIA, through its subsidiaries, is a leading financial guarantor and provider of specialized financial services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results related to its insurance coverage on collateralized debt obligation contracts. As a result of defendants' false statements, MBIA stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching an all-time high of $73.31 per share in December 2006.

On January 9, 2008, the Company announced it would incur a total of $737 million in loss and loss adjustment expenses for the fourth quarter of 2007, and had cut the quarterly shareholder dividend from $.34 per share to $.13 per share. On this news, MBIA's stock price declined to as low as $11.11 per share before closing at $13.40 per share on January 9, 2008, on volume of 32 million shares, a two-day decline of 24%.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

(a) the Company lacked requisite internal controls to ensure that the Company's underwriting standards and its internal rating system for its CDO contracts were adequate;

(b) the Company concealed its exposure to CDOs containing subprime debt;

(c) the Company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its mark-to-market losses;

(d) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in the mortgage market, the Company would be forced to tighten its underwriting standards related to its asset-backed securities, which would have a direct material negative impact on its premium production going forward;

(e) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to its CDO contracts containing subprime loans than it had previously disclosed; and

(f) the Company had far greater exposure to a potential ratings downgrade from one of the credit ratings agencies than it had previously disclosed.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of MBIA common stock during the Class Period.

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Coughlin Stoia Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Schering-Plough Corporation securities during the period between July 24, 2006, and January 14, 2008.

The complaint charges Schering-Plough and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Schering-Plough is a pharmaceuticals company engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture, and marketing of medical therapies and treatments worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about Schering-Plough's drug Zetia, used to lower cholesterol, Zetia's sister drug, Vytorin, which is a combination of Zetia and the statin Zocor, and a clinical trial about those drugs called ENHANCE.

On January 14, 2008, defendants released the results of the ENHANCE trial, which had been delayed for eighteen months. The ENHANCE trial found that high cholesterol patients did no better taking Vytorin over the generic form of Zocor and that patients on Vytorin actually had more heart attacks, cardiovascular deaths and heart procedures than those who were on Zocor. As a result, Schering-Plough's stock price dropped $2.21 in one day.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Schering-Plough securities during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from January 18, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

SIRF HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Files CA Securities Fraud Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. between October 31, 2007, and February 4, 2008, inclusive against the Company and certain officers and directors, alleging fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. ss.ss. 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC (17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b-5) .

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous, positive press releases, statements and quarterly financial reports filed with the SEC that described the Company's financial performance. These statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

(a) that the Company's purchase of Centrality Communications, Inc. was having an adverse impact on SiRF's financial results due to an overlap in product lines;

(b) that SiRF's major customers were not placing sufficient orders for the Company to meet its targets;

(c) that Centrality's product line had lower gross margins than the Company's products and though Centrality's acquisition would help SiRF increase revenue it would also significantly lower SiRF's gross margins;

(d) that the Company's customers were moving to cellular- enabled products which SiRF could not compete with;

(e) that downward pricing pressures were accelerating and would lead to lower margins in the future; and

(f) that as a result of these factors defendants had no basis for making statements suggesting that the Company's earnings per share would remain steady in their fourth fiscal quarter.

The defendants' false and misleading statements during the Class Period caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

Finally, on February 4, 2008, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2007. When the truth about the Company was revealed SiRF's stock price plunged $8.91 per share, losing approximately 55% of its value, to close at $7.36 per share.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of SiRF securities. Had the plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 8, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.